Nearly $800 million for water quality programs. Close to $700 million for Everglades restoration. A $100 million Indian River Lagoon Protection program.
These are all environmental projects Gov. Ron DeSantis proudly approved funding for at a press conference Thursday in Fort Pierce where he signed the largest state budget in history.
But many Florida environmentalists feel one critical action was missing 鈥� a line-item veto to a measure that would suspend creation of new city and county fertilizer bans past July 1 and fund a $250,000 study at the University of Florida to evaluate their effectiveness.
The legislature tacked the item onto the budget, which it approved in May. Its approval won鈥檛 affect existing fertilizer bans, like the one through October in Miami-Dade County. Rather, it鈥檒l prevent cities and towns from creating new ordinances or extending existing ones.
Pushing a policy change through the budget rather than allowing it to go through the legislative process with public input was a mistake, said Eve Samples, executive director of environmental group Friends of the Everglades.
鈥淚t was really a sneak attack,鈥� she said. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a disconnect between what we鈥檙e seeing out of Tallahassee and the dire water quality issues we鈥檙e facing in Florida.鈥�
Throughout Florida, there are more than 100 municipalities that restrict fertilizer use during the rainy season in order to prevent excess phosphorus and nitrogen pollution. This includes several in South Florida, including Ft. Lauderdale, Key Biscayne and Miami Beach.
High levels of these nutrients have been tied to persistent issues like diminishing sea grass, algal blooms and fish kills. For years, municipal fertilizer bans during rainier months have been heralded as one of local governments鈥� most effective tools to regulate water quality.
READ MORE: Fertilizer giant threw 'fundraiser' for Florida lawmaker who sponsored 鈥榬adioactive roads鈥� bill
Friends of the Everglades joined more than 50 organizations throughout the state, including the Alachua County Commission, in writing DeSantis a letter, urging him to veto the line item.
Though the budget designates the most money in Florida history to the environment 鈥� almost $7.3 billion of a $116.5 billion total 鈥� the decision made about fertilizer is telling, Samples said.
鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 tell the full story,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e could allocate all of the money in the world for earthmoving projects. But if at the same time, we鈥檙e watering down our environmental protections in Florida, we鈥檙e not going to make meaningful progress.鈥�
Jeremy Redfern, a DeSantis spokesperson, clarified the intent behind the approval in an email. It鈥檚 an effort to help control the study, he said.
鈥淭he purpose of the hold on new implementations ensures that fewer variables are introduced during the study period,鈥� Redfern said.
Miami-Dade County Commissioner Eileen Higgins, who championed the county鈥檚 fertilizer ban three years ago after a Biscayne Bay fish kill was brought on by nutrient pollution and extreme heat, said she鈥檚 glad the decision doesn鈥檛 affect existing bans.
Higgins will keep an eye on the results of the study, she said. In the meantime, Miami-Dade County residents still need to comply with the ordinance 鈥� and should do so beyond its expiration.
鈥淣o matter what the Florida Legislature says, I would recommend that every single person in the state of Florida who has a yard and has a lawn, not fertilize it,鈥� Higgins said. 鈥淭ake matters into your own hands. Do the right thing to save our water system. Don鈥檛 fertilize. Period.鈥�
Haley Busch, outreach director for environmental lobbying group 1000 Friends of Florida, said she鈥檚 wary of how the taxpayer-funded study鈥檚 results will be portrayed, especially considering the growing influence of the fertilizer industry on public research.
The positive impacts of fertilizer bans have already been well-studied, she said.
UF鈥檚 Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, which will be at the helm of the research, declined to comment on the governor鈥檚 decision to approve funding for the study.
鈥淲e have to ask ourselves about any action the state takes: Are we moving toward additional water quality protections or are we moving backwards?鈥� Busch said. 鈥淏y reopening study on this topic and tying the hands of our local government leaders, that doesn鈥檛 strengthen water quality protections.鈥�
This story was produced in partnership with the Florida Climate Reporting Network, a multi-newsroom initiative formed to cover the impacts of climate change in the state.
Copyright 2023 WUSF 89.7. To see more, visit .
